Taxation: Theft or a Fulfillment of a Contract?

[Yom]

There has been a thread based on taxation before, but a lot of the discussion was based on the amount and type of taxation. This thread is to serve basically as a thread to discuss whether or not taxation is theft. Some of the libertarian members of CFC OT believe that taxation is simply theft by the government.

I do not believe that this is the case, however. Instead, I believe that taxation is one half of a contract. The government is not keeping the money just for itself; rather, it is using the money to provide certain services for those under juristdiction (the citizens of the state). The government's half of the contract is to provide those services, while the citizens' half is to provide the funds, through taxation, to fund those services.

I would prefer if we did not discuss taxation with regards to citizens who do not pay taxes due to poverty, since it is a discussion that lends itself more to a discussion of the type of taxation rather than whether or not taxation is theft. Either way, the poor do not truly fall under rules different from the rest of the population. They agree to pay certain taxes (sales) to contribute what little they can, and, like all other citizens, the poor essentially enter into a contract with the government to pay a certain amount in taxation if/when they acquire enough income.

 

[WillJ]

I personally regard it as theft, since a contract implies mutual consent.

Of course, this doesn't (necessarily) mean it's unjustified theft.

 

[Yom]

I personally regard it as theft, since a contract implies mutual consent.

Of course, this doesn't (necessarily) mean it's unjustified theft.

I knew I should have added a "No, but it is not a contract" option, but apparently you cannot edit polls.

 

[punkbass2000]

I personally regard it as theft, since a contract implies mutual consent.

Of course, this doesn't (necessarily) mean it's unjustified theft.

There is mutual consent: You live there. (Assuming it's a reasonably free country, it's consent to whateer the country's laws may be)

 

[Yom]

There is mutual consent: You live there. (Assuming it's a reasonably free country, it's consent to whateer the country's laws may be)

Perhaps I should clarify that this situation is to be taking place in a democratic country with little restrictions on migration.

 

[Rhymes]

It is kinda theft in some cases. For example, in Oregon, I have heard that there is an incredibly strong lobby that prevents any kind of corporate tax or gross tax, leaving the income tax to support the state spandings all alone (there are no sales tax in oregon).
So that is some kind of theft, since the rich and people in controle decide, to their advantage, which part of the population pays for the spendings.

 

[WillJ]

There is mutual consent: You live there. (Assuming it's a reasonably free country, it's consent to whateer the country's laws may be)

So what? You do realize it's very difficult to move (not physically speaking in my case---although that can be the case for some---, but rather mostly due to necessary life changes), right?

Let's take your argument to the extreme: Would the government be simply adhering to a contract if it takes 90% of an impoverished old widow's money, and she must take it because she's neither wealthy nor healthy enough to easily move out of the country?

I knew I should have added a "No, but it is not a contract" option, but apparently you cannot edit polls.

But I do think it's theft (unless your definition of "theft" includes being unjustified, which is certainly reasonable). My opinion pretty much fits with your second option in the poll. If you're wondering, the reason I haven't voted is because I like to wait a bit before voting in polls such as this, so that I can read others' arguments and let them influence my opinion a bit.

 

[punkbass2000]

So what? You do realize it's very difficult to move (not physically speaking in my case---although that can be the case for some---, but rather mostly due to necessary life changes), right?

Let's take your argument to the extreme: Would the government be simply adhering to a contract if it takes 90% of an impoverished old widow's money, and she must take it because she's neither wealthy nor healthy enough to easily move out of the country?

If you want the privileges that come with a state you have to acquiese to its demands. Yes, a sudden, significant change in policy could mean problems, but that issue is not really tied to taxation per se.

 

[Godwynn]

Yes and no.

Taxes for Foreign Aid, Social Security [something I'll never see] etc. is theft.

It is not for Police, Courts, Military, Roads etc.

 

[Rhymes]

Yes and no.

Taxes for Foreign Aid, Social Security [something I'll never see] etc. is theft.

It is not for Police, Courts, Military, Roads etc.

Its not theft, its the cost of democracy: endorsing the majority's will, and therefore their idea of national spendings

 

[Godwynn]

Its not theft, its the cost of democracy: endorsing the majority's will, and therefore their idea of national spendings

No, the cost of democracy would be my tax dollars going to the government officials and military servicemen doing their job.

 

[Rhymes]

What about the people in the USA that think they are getting robbed by the admin and that war funds should be used in local interests?
How do you decide who is right about the use of tax dollars?
Thats what democracy serves.

 

[amadeus]

If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for Uncle Sam.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Who gives Jesus the moral authority to tell anyone that they must pay 10 percent in taxes?

 

[amadeus]

That's a distortion of what I said. I never said Jesus told you to pay 10%, I just said that if it's good enough for him, it should be good enough for the U.S. government.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Perhaps you haven't heard of a little thing called sarcasm.

 

[WillJ]

If you want the privileges that come with a state you have to acquiese to its demands.

Of course. The question is whether or not living in the jurisdiction of a state inherently means you want its privileges.

The amount of disagreement with the government we see everywhere is surely enough evidence that you don't necessarily want everything your locale's state has to offer. You might say that if people don't like it they could just move, but isn't that a little harsh? Keep in mind governments proclaim sovereignty over land, and all land has already been claimed (with the exception of Antarctica). Thus there's no real freedom of governing like there is freedom of enterprise in various countries, and thus any comparison between this and taking your business elsewhere (perhaps starting your own company) when some corporation doesn't please you is invalid. Actually, I'd say the problem exists in business as well, due to business involving land and other limited resources just like governing, but to a very diluted extent.

Now imagine this scenario: One day every two weeks I go to my neighbor's house and mow his lawn. I then take 10 dollars from his wallet while he's sleeping. He eventually catches on and wants this to stop, because he doesn't even want his lawn mowed (he likes a nice wild look), much less money taken from him because of the expenses of doing so. I say, "Well then why don't you just move?" He doesn't want to and so just puts up with it. (Imagine I have a rediculous stockload of weaponry that keeps the local government, and especially my neighbor himself, from taking action.) So do you think what I'm doing is morally acceptable?

Yes, a sudden, significant change in policy could mean problems, but that issue is not really tied to taxation per se.

I wasn't asking if it'd cause problems, but rather if it fundamentally changes anything in your view. So does it? Would you consider the widow example theft, or still just a contract?

 

[WillJ]

Yes and no.

Taxes for Foreign Aid, Social Security [something I'll never see] etc. is theft.

It is not for Police, Courts, Military, Roads etc.

Just curious, why is this? Let me guess: is it because the former group is taking money and giving it to someone else, whereas the latter helps the person whose money is taken?

 

[emzie]

Fulfillment of a Contract.

Taxes for Foreign Aid, Social Security [something I'll never see] etc. is theft.

I can't believe you'd consider foreign aid a theft. In the States, half of your money earned eventually ends up in the hands of the government. However, the federal government is taking only 32% of that half (16% of all income). (CIA Factbook. Economy = 11 trillion while government revenues - 1.782 trillion). The rest goes state and local governments -- roads, prisons, schools, medicade.

So the federal government has 1.782 trillion to work with. According to the Christian Science Monitor $16.25 billion went to foreign aid (in the traditional sense, not the aid the US gives to Israel or Egypt for military expenditures). That's .9% of the federal government's budget.

The average American earns $37,000 a year. $5,920 of that went to the federal government. Of that $5,920, 53.28 went to foreign aid.

If you're to cheep to send $4.44 a month over seas, you're pretty pathetic.

 

[Akka]

Of course it isn't theft (in a functionning democratic state). It's the normal and legal way to make the country work.
Saying taxation is theft is like saying that the road code is oppression because it hamper your freedom.